Saying "So bam" doesn't prove a point, especially when there is little, or no evidence or explanation backing any of your arguments.
Every SA theocracy is lead by a heretic? Let me check.... Oh wait, they're not. However, when you look at D'hara, it is beyond all doubts, a Monarchy. It has a King. Granted it has a constitution, and embraces some vaguely republican ideals, but it is still a monarchy.
FR had a chance to be a theocracy. They spit in the church's eye and chose to place Republican ideology above the Church. That is the most important thing everyone is missing here. If you place another ideal above the church, guess what the makes you? Not a theocracy. That is the absolute most defining portion of a theocracy, is that the Church is held above all else.
Theocracy means rule by God or gods and refers primarily to an internal "rule of the heart", especially in its biblical application... The common, generic use of the term, as defined above in terms of rule by a church or analogous religious leadership, would be more accurately described as an ecclesiocracy... An ecclesiocracy, on the other hand, is a situation where the religious leaders assume a leading role in the state, but do not claim that they are instruments of divine revelation.
As to D'hara, it is a monarchy, but simply stating it as a monarchy is extremely misleading as it is inaccurate, which I believe goes with FR. It is a republic yes, but it is truly a theocratic republic.
